Where we failed is that $120k was supposed to be a middle-class income when living costs this much. The fact the median is 63k is a sign that all the excess value has been sucked out of the masses and funneled into the coffers of the billionaire class.
100% this. It's not that costs rose as much as it's that salaries didn't increase.
It's both. If the price of homes aren't reflecting an affordable price, you have to ask, who's buying them? It's not the average family - it's corps sucking up homes as investment assets, driving up prices to sell to each other and the "lucky" family or two that get to empty out their retirement fund just to have a place to live. That's not reflective of a natural, reasonable increase. That's the result of hedge funds destroying the housing market for the rest of us, just to pad their bank accounts.
That may be true in some of the lower priced Midwestern markets, but I sell real estate in Boston and I don't see big corporate interests in the single family or owner occupied 2-3 family market. as much as big corporations have ruined a lot of things in this country, I don't think we Dan just wave our hands and say "corporate buyers" and explain away our housing market problems.
We have a confluence of decades of exclusionary zoning and restrictions on building that make meaningfully adding to the supply of housing almost impossible. We have a huge deficit of qualified workers in the building trades, in part because all the work dried up after the great recession and people left the field and in part because we've pushed more and more kids to go to college. We have a mortgage system that's nearly unique worldwide that allows homeowners tremendous advantages in keeping their housing costs low, but inversely provides tremendous disadvantages to having them move around more often and free up housing stock (so lots of aging singles and couples in big houses better suited for young people with kids). We have a society that's bizarrely fixated on single family living even though we desperately need more density in most markets. And we have the problem of wage stagnation. None of those things are directly attributable to corporate ownership of large numbers of houses.
I'd love for there to be some silver bullet where we could just say "disincentivize corporations from owning small housing stock" and solve the problem, but it's nowhere near that simple.
The link gives great context to the article. Thank you.
The problem is you need to be a couple to have a house.
In the 80s and even 90s the mother of the house probably didn't work. I know mine didn't. Now they have to. The prices have gone up to match this "new normal" because there simply aren't enough houses. Or at least not enough houses in the places people want to live.
The free markets have settled on the idea that a house should cost two incomes. The government needs to step in to build affordable homes and get them into the right hands. No landlords scoffing them all up.
I honestly don't even know why this upsets me so much. I am 50 and all set. I don't have children and barely any debt. I never considered myself particularly patriotic but somehow this whole thing gets under my skin. I guess it sours my achievements and fruits of decades of struggle (it took three generations of planning and hustle to get us out of poverty). It's like being a kid having a birthday party at Chuck E Cheese by yourself while all your friends are locked outside and you can see them through the glass windows.
Because you have empathy for others, it's a good thing.
I agree. Something I wish we saw more of.
It gets under my skin because the west was on the right trajectory; improving wealth equality, quality of life, work life balance, etc — Then Capitalists killed all those gains using Conservatism, Neoliberalism, and a bastardised version of Libertarianism — just to enrich a tiny percentage the human population and return the rest of humanity to feudalism.
Why should they own all the gains from humanities collective efforts, when all of us have a rightful claim to a share of those gains?
In the early 1900s we had huge fights for labor. Strikes yes, but also some literal armed fights.
We won a lot. They conceded a lot.
But they've eroded those wins, little by little, for a century or so.
This is what will ALWAYS happen when you live in a system explicitly designed to extract profit from workers and reward greed. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be controlled. It will always slide backwards into this. We need a different system altogether.
Yup, we could be creating an amazing life for more people - and damaging the environment less while we are at it; but instead "we" keep doubling down in the other direction
Wanting other people to have what you have, without your struggle, is an opinion we need more of.
Especially when we have a society with a huge number of people who think that if you're poor, you deserve it.
What gets me is, a lot of the POOR people say that about POOR people.
We live in the most effectively propagandized society ever created. It hasn't been until more recently that it's started to slip. A lot of folks still believe in the old lies and believe that everything would work if we just got rid of the immigrants, Jews, and corrupt politicians. Still I think more people are waking up to the reality that this system is broken not the people in it.
And that's because they are stupid. They are not educated becasause the education they received was garbage. All by design from your "trickle down" bringing republikkkans. Working as planned.
Because you're not an awful person trying to pull the ladder up while saying "fuck you I got mine"
This happened because people were lulled into voting for the very people who gave their fair share of corporate profits to the rich. Looking at you, Republicans, especially Ronald Reagan.
TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.
Maybe in the middle of nowhere America. Meanwhile my wife and I make well above that in Los Angeles and we can't afford the monthly on a two bedroom house in a sketchy neighborhood.
SF Bay Area, $125k a year, I gave up on buying a house. I'll just inherit my parents' when they die, thanks.
Most people's parents will end up selling their home to pay for cruise ships, and or palliative care.
So why do people live there?
All I ever heard is how absurd the cost of living is in Cali, is the weather really that good?
Being born there, living your entire life there, your whole family and all your friends are there, you went to high school and college there so it's easier to transfer to a CSU for grad school, and cheaper because you won't have to pay non-resident fees, etc etc. The same reason people don't move from other places. Besides, it takes a lot of savings to move, especially out of state, especially when you have to keep going back and forth to look at places. There's also just not wanting to move. I am really not ok with being forced out of my home and away from my family because of bullshit like this.
And yes the weather really is that good - in Southern California.
Good thing investment "firms" are buying up all the rental properties, right, guys? Neofeudalism for the win!
But you can buy a microshare of the fund through Robinhood, so it all works out. Right?
Here's what happened in a nutshell.
Lyndon Johnson had great plans for the US, but wanted to win the Vietnam War with one huge push. That quickly turned into a giant quagmire. LBJ and later Nixon, ordered bombing of the North. That meant the US factories were working 24/7. Nice for factory owners and union workers, but LBJ was paying for it with paper money because he didn't want to raise taxes. Ironically, Nixon ran for President as an anti inflation and pro peace candidate.
Nixon and Kissinger doubled down on the bombing and inflation started to spiral. Also, those factories were getting a bit worn down. Unable to met the deamnd for the bombing and supply foreign markets the US ceded local steel making to Germany and Japan. This is going to bite the US in the ass when the Arab Oil boycott hits. US steel is much more oil dependant than the newer factories, so suddenly Toyotas and VWs are the hot cars, and US manufacturing takes a huge hit.
Carter tried to control inflation and cut oil use, but got kicked out over the Iran hostage mess. Reagan came in and cut taxes for the rich. This increased the debt, but gave the economy an unrealistic jolt.
tl dr. In 1960, minimum wage was $1.00/hour. The average house was $11,000.00 and $1 million was considered a vast fortune.* Middle class meant a High School graduate with a Union job supporting a family of four.
By the time Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr were done, 'middle class' was two college degrees supporting the house and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
This is what happens when most people think the disparity in wealth should grow.
It does.
Yet disability pays $11k a YEAR that'sthe same as $5.42/hour.
The US government would rather disabled people just not exist. From their perspective, nobody on disability creates shareholder value, therefore you are subhuman. And non-disabled humans to them are cattle.
Mr Realtor can blame his own industry for a good portion of the problem.
Poor tax laws on the richest 1% killed the American Dream.
Sufficient application of guillotines will restore it.
Smith explained how, just a few years ago, $60-$70K a year would have been sufficient to qualify for a home.
Yeah, no. It was more than a few years ago.
I think that this has been trouble since 2007. Financial institutions went from giving lots of home loans to only giving corporations and the elite loans.
2007 was 4 years ago.
checks math
Everything checks out here
I don't have a full Orlando market research report but pre-pandemic (2018) you could get a house in my neighborhood (Davenport) for $265k-325k. In 2024 the starting price is ~$650k. In 2018 I bought a house (Orlando) for my aunt to live in for $150k. After buying the little bungalow, I saw the rest of that neighbohood get gobbled up by investment funds and now it is almost completely rentals. The current comps have it at $325k.
Homes were dirt cheap from 2009 until about 2013, but everyone was broke. Prices were reasonable from 2014 to maybe 2018 (maybe). The post lockdown boom and investment fund buying spree has been insane.
But then you would have to live in Davenport. I've never seen a more literal suburban hell. 30 minutes of side streets to go anywhere without traffic.
Note that the source of this opinion piece is TikTok. The salary needed for a middle class existence varies wildly from city to city.
I'm in Salt Lake City, for example, and a recent article has the necessary salary to afford a home around $140,000/year. I moved here in part because it was a much cheaper alternative to D.C. and the minimum salary to own a home is still $140,000.
That 120k a year is still assuming you buy a house on a long term mortgage.
It even says 120k to qualify, not actually comfortably buy.
I will repeat this here:
While there are a lot of factors, you really cannot understate the size of the homes being built in the US. We are building homes nearly 3x the size (despite cost per square foot only going up slightly), and pretending it has no effect on housing costs. It's actually pretty insane.
It died along time ago with the dreamer.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.